C HAH-
SAUSH KOOTENAI AND PEND'd ORI ELLES TRIBES
CHARLO
KOOSTAHTAH
KOOSTA
SMIMil (Salish: News)
Volume 3 - Number 7
NEW MOON OF THE WILD ONION (August 1, 1973)
Price 15 cents
Tribe's Authority as Reservation Planners Outlined
Senate Bill 268: What's All The Fuss About?
Dixon: Two months ago the U.S. Senate quietly passed Title Five of Senate Bill 268. Bill 268 was a much needed measure to provide assistance to to states for land use planning
.....Title Five extended the
assistance and planning authority to Indian tribes, bands and villages.
But the bill was not quietly received on the Flathead reservation. The Missoulian, a daily newspaper from near-by Missoula, reports that several white groups have formed to oppose the bill because, the ; Missoulian quoted one source as saying "Indian people lack the human and financial re-
sources to accomplish the task (of planning and zoning)" Tribal Secretary Fred Houle, Jr., called the white reaction against the bill "common of the contempt some whites have about the ability of Indians here and throughout the U.S." and he added that if "^hese people would just use common sense and read the bill they wouldn't get so upset"
Title five of the bill was designed to provide reservation areas with the same scope of planning and zoning that became available to state controlled lands under the act. The bill noted that "States and local governments do not pos-
State Agrees Not To Tax Reservation Indians
Helena: The Montana Department of Revenue says that Indians earning their living on their own reservations will no longer have to pay state income taxes.
The ruling follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down in March which stated that Arizona could not tax a member of the Navajo tribe.
In MOntana, as many as 20 thousand Indians could benefit from the ruling.
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and members Eugene and Clara Howlett had filed federal court action against the state last year to prevent confiscation of property in lieu of back state taxes. The state had filed liens against the Howletts and sev- * eral other members who had refused to pay state tax tabs. Court action on the Howlett
case was suspended in January pending a decision by the U. S. Supreme Court on the Arizona case.
The nation's highest court found that the state of Arizona could no longer collect taxes from Rosalind McClan-ahan, a Navajo tribal member working on the Navajo reservation, and ordered the state to return $16.20 withheld from her in 1967. A unanimous opinion written by Justice Thur-good Marshall noted that: "Indian tribes were once indépendant and sovereign nations and their claim to sovereignty long predates that of our own government."
State Department of Revenue Officials have interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court ruling as: "an Indian reservation is a
(cont. on page 2)
sess legal authority to conduct such (zoning) activities on Indian land" and, therefore, the authority must be given to the tribes. It points out that Indian tribes "clearly appear" to already have the authority to zone and determine land use within the boundaries of a reservation.
In essence, then, the bill merely outlines the authority tribes already possessed within the reservations. It notes that tribal planning and zoning is not just limited to lands owned by the tribe or held in trust by the federal government but includes "all lands within the exterior boundaries of any Ind-
ian reservation, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way."
Under the title, tribes would have the same authority to enforce land use plans as any other governmental organization. Tribes would also have input into the land use of areas adjacent to the reservation boundaries. This means, as a possible example, the tribe and the county might jointly plan the development of the northern half of Flathead Lake.
Fears that the tribes do., not have the "human and financial resources" to plan^and enforce land use are not realis-(continued on page 2)
18-Year Old Vote Set
But Injuction May be Filed
Dixon:The Secretary of the Interior has called for an election on whether or not 18 year olds should vote in tribal elections. But the Tribal Council has threatened to delay the vote in the courts until the matter of off-reservation eligibility can be resolved.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs notified the tribe last month that the Secretary had called an election for Sept. 8. The election was called at the request of the Council to comply with the 2 6 th amendment to the U. S. Constitution which lowered the voting age in federal elections from 21 to 18.
But the Council learned after asking the secretary to call for the vote that a new ruling on the eligibility of non-resident tribal members had been made.On May 2 the department announced that Indian Keor-ganization Act (IRAJconstitu-tions had been reviewed and
the department was re-interpreting eligibility for secretary called constitutional change elections.
The new ruling notes the tribe was formed as a "tribe" rather than "residents of a reservation" and that the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) permits all members of a tribe to vote on constitutional matters. The ruling concludes that this situation is "true in the case of the Flathead Reservation" and it said that off-reservation members as well as 18 year olds would be eligible for the voting age and all future constitutional referendums.
But the Council and Tribal Attorneys, Wilkenson, Cragun and Barker, feel there are several weaknesses in the new ^ruling and they intend to ask for a preliminary injunction to stop the election. Their argue-ment is based on the fact that (cont. on page 2